SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The World Socialist Web Site reports
Three US states--New Jersey, Maine, and Illinois--with a combined population of 23 million people entered a new fiscal year [July 1] without a state budget, forcing widespread shutdowns of public services, state offices, and schools, as well as the closure of state parks on the Fourth of July holiday weekend.
In a fourth state, Connecticut, Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy ordered across-the-board spending cuts totaling $2.1 billion after the legislature failed to pass a balanced budget. Malloy's cuts include the elimination of summer youth employment programs and rental assistance for low-income families, as well as a reduction in education funding.
Six more states entered the new fiscal year without a final budget, but without, as yet, any significant shutdown of state services: Delaware, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Cuts are to be expected in all of these states if new budgets are not enacted by July 5, the first workday after the holiday.
[...] In a display of elitist arrogance, [Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey] spent the weekend with his family at an official residence in a state park that had otherwise been closed to the public by his own executive order.
[...] In Maine, Republican Governor Paul LePage ordered the first statewide shutdown of government services since 1991 after the legislature failed to bow to his demand that it adopt a new, two-year, $7 billion budget without any tax increases.
In a brazenly antidemocratic action, LePage and Democratic and Republican state legislators had already agreed that the new budget would repeal a measure approved last November by the votes of more than 357,000 people in a statewide referendum. The referendum imposed an additional three percent income tax on the wealthiest state residents--those who make more than $200,000 a year--to increase funding for public education.
Additional Coverage: ABCNews
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:09PM (43 children)
You either allocate those resources profitably, or you don't. That's it.
It doesn't matter whether you call your organization "government" or "business" or anything else. You either allocate resources profitably, or you don't.
(Score: 4, Disagree) by bob_super on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:11PM (20 children)
Define: "profitably"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:22PM (19 children)
Here's the big secret: NOBODY KNOWS WHAT IS GOING TO BE PROFITABLE!
That's why capitalism is so valuable: It allows many people to make bets on what is going to be a profitable allocation of resources; those who make good bets are rewarded with the power to make more and larger decisions for society, while those who make bad bets lose their decision-making power.
-----------------
Capitalism is simply the philosophy that resources should be allocated according to rules that have been found agreeable in advance of allocation; this is an iterative process, whereby resources become increasingly allocated by agreement (hence, there is the emergence of "property"), even if it didn't start out that way.
At the very least, this makes people feel like they have control in their lives, which is psychologically valuable.
Even better, because disparate individuals come to be the stewards of resources, a workable shape for society is found more readily by tapping into one of the Universe's most fundamental processes: Evolution (innovation) by variation (competition in a market) and selection (consumer choice). Intelligent design is a myth; a system as complex as society requires evolution in order to keep society well matched to the environment at hand.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:03PM (18 children)
That's investment.
In slave economies, people invested in slaves.
In feudal economies, people invested in castles and weapons.
In a socialist economy, people still invest in their worker-owned companies.
You have been brainwashed into thinking that concentrated ownership is some kind of magic.
It isn't.
BTW, what Capitalism is is exploiting the labor of others while avoiding doing labor yourself.
Take out the "lazy" factor and leave only producers (workers who own the means of production) and you've converted the system into Socialism.
...and a government, doing its job properly, makes investments in e.g education and healthcare and infrastructure to plan for a strong future with an able workforce and e.g. good transportation system.
N.B. USA's vision in this is seriously lacking in the last 4 decades as it becomes an also-ran third-world country.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:20PM (9 children)
Indeed, it's unlikely that capitalism could produce a concentration of ownership that is dangerous or unprofitable for society, as any concentration will be the result of "do as we agreed" cooperation.
In contrast, when you build society around a government, you build the very culture itself around the principle of "do as we say" coercion; any such concentration of ownership under these conditions is likely to be very disagreeable!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:58PM (5 children)
it's unlikely that capitalism could produce a concentration of ownership
You don't understand Capitalism in the slightest.
that is dangerous or unprofitable for society
You remind me of the scene in "Guide for the Married Man" [google.com] where a woman catches her husband in bed with another woman.
Now, it could be that you're simply deaf and blind.
You clearly haven't noticed that a majority of USAians are on the cusp of insolvency as wealth becomes more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
...and, if you're so enthused about Capitalism, you should prove your faith in that by moving to Somalia where The Free Market reigns supreme.
You should be a billionaire in no time at all.
cooperation
You don't know the meaning of the word.
Having a boss that tells you what to do is the opposite of that.
Again, you don't understand Capitalism in the slightest.
when you build society around a government [...] coercion
We have a prior history that includes The Guilded Age where regulation was weak and wealth was concentrated.
That didn't go well.
Before that, Dickens wrote a bunch of books about the age of concentrated wealth that he saw.
You are simply an ignorant fool.
Maybe one day you'll grow up and complete your education.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:04PM (2 children)
Context is a thing; try reading whole sentences.
It's clear you are a reactionary who responds based on triggers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:23PM
Heh. Have you considered going into comedy?
Have you considered completing your education?
You use words that you clearly don't understand.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:25PM
Heh. Have you considered going into comedy?
Have you considered completing your education?
You use words that you clearly don't understand.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 06 2017, @01:24AM
Time for bartering. Now there's some serious tools to organize it using computers and networks. In addition some new ways currencies can be accomplished. As long as people have something to offer it's doable.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 06 2017, @01:51AM
That's the era that built up the US as imminent superpower and reduced concentration of wealth. It went quite well.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:35PM (2 children)
> Indeed, it's unlikely that capitalism could produce a concentration of ownership that is dangerous or unprofitable for society,
> as any concentration will be the result of "do as we agreed" cooperation.
History books definitely demonstrate otherwise.
I do like "do as we agreed", though, because it sounds like something a robber baron channeling his best Don Corleone would say in a soft voice while flanked by a a few gorillas totally not pointing their machines guns at any member of anyone's family.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:33PM (1 child)
History books definitely demonstrate [that a concentration of ownership is dangerous for society]
Demonstrated very recently once again by Economics professor Thomas Piketty in his 696-page book [wikipedia.org] which analyzed 250 years of Capitalism and reached the conclusion that that economic system leads to Oligarchy (government by the rich).
...and, really, all you have to do is look around and see how tenuous an existence more and more USAians have now.
Of course, those observers who are so immature that they weren't around for the 1950s and 1960s don't have a baseline from which to compare just how far Joe Average has fallen in that nation with its Capitalist economy.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @12:24AM
I have to admit that 696 pages is a lot, he is probably write.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:09PM (2 children)
What capitalism is, is exploiting the ... wait, what?
Capitalism is about accumulating capital. It doesn't even have to be monetary capital. It can be fixing the roof in your house - an accumulation of value, as you perceive it.
Why does it matter, that I mentioned perception? Because value is contextual. You could pour buckets of water on someone who's drowning, and each incremental bucket would have a negative value - or you could bring buckets of water to someone dying of thirst in a desert, and each bucket would have vast value. You could have a gang of labourers feverishly digging a ditch that nobody wants, and the accumulated value would be nil - or in fact negative, most likely. Or they could be creating drainage to divert floodwaters, and be rendering great service.
Capitalism doesn't imply an employment relationship whatsoever. You can have a capitalist hermit. Or you could have a capitalist cooperative. Or you could have a capitalist village where everyone works for themselves. Or you can have a capitalist employer employing hundreds of people - who are all, themselves, engaging in capitalism.
The funny thing is, even Marx had nothing against capital, qua store of value. He made some (entirely comprehensible, given the era in which he lived) mistakes about the nature of value and its accumulation, but he understood full well that you need an accumulation of value in some form. His main departure from the world at large was taking the position that ownership needed to be undermined as a concept without replacing it with a different system of resource allocation and resolution of disputes.
Study economics with an open mind.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:46PM (1 child)
Capitalism is making money from money.
If someone somewhere isn't PRODUCING something, how does he make profit?
Now, if people came to his cave to buy from him what he produced in his 1-man operation, that would be entrepreneurship.
That would more accurately be described as Socialism (the workers^W sole worker-owner owns the means of production).
...and if he never leaves his cave and nobody comes there to buy, he needs to exploit the labor of a salesman.
Once again, Capitalism is the process of exploiting the labor of others.
You keep describing business as if all businesses are Capitalist.
They aren't.
Capitalism involves the word "employee".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:26PM
Thank you very much. You have elucidated that when you use the word "Capitalism" it means something different from everybody else. I'm going to guess that you mean something different by "Socialism" as well.
That explains a lot about your confused rants.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:32PM (4 children)
Listen there Comrade. Have you ever met any rich people? I have, and by and large most of them (with exception of some old-money hags) actually work real fucking hard. In the US if you are a workaholic, you will get rich, it's a guarantee. Lot of smart folk who aren't pathologically tied ot their job will actually opt for a more relaxed, less-stressful, and less financially rewarding path, so they can enjoy life more.
You think the likes of Elon Musk and Donald Trump avoid doing work? Are you fucking insane? These guys ONLY work. When you see one of them tee-up do you think they are thinking "oh I wonder if I can get a birdie on this hole" or do you think they are thinking "how do I Make America Greater Again" or "How do I revolutionize the Auto Industry while simultaneously planning colonization of Mars?" True genius never sleeps. And while I personally do not bill my work for all my shower-thoughts, I know definitely that plenty of real work does not involve hitting the same nail with a hammer over and over again.
You are just a self-hating clown. Deep down you know what it takes to be successful, and you know you don't have it, so you try to bring others down so you can feel better about your life. If you want your revolution, head down to Venezuela, they are in a process of one, but there is a twist! And the second twist will come later, when they replace their shitty communist system with an even shittier more communist system, same us before only slightly more cannibalism. Because why work for something when you can steal from the rich while being belligerent to them for their wealth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:48PM
The word you're looking for is entrepreneur.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:31PM (1 child)
Whelp, we have found our temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:15PM
You can't improve the world around you without believing that you can do so.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday July 06 2017, @05:39AM
In the US if you are a workaholic, you will get rich, it's a guarantee
LOL!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:16PM (11 children)
Profitability should NEVER be of concern to the government. Accountability, transparency and good stewardship and governance in favor of the citizens (corporations are NOT people) for sure are required, but profit or profitability are NOT.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:25PM (6 children)
Either resources are allocated profitably [soylentnews.org], or they are not. That's it.
There is NOTHING else in this universe.
A bank balance is just one way to try to measure profit, but it's not the only way. Maybe that is your confusion.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DECbot on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:21PM
I agree with the grandparent on this one. A government should not be judged on its profitability, but entirely on its RESPONSIBILITY. It is responsible for collecting taxes for the services it performs and its obligations. It is responsible for not overspending its revenue. It is responsible for treating is citizens and residences fairly. It is responsible to creating, enforcing, and following its laws. Protecting its people and providing them with opportunity for success is yet another responsibility. Countries like Cuba, North Korea, or Venezuela may be able to balance a checkbook enough to make the government 'profitable' but its government is still a failure to its people as it is not responsible.
I'm sure you're able to propose the scenario where 'profitable' becomes interchangeable with 'responsible'. However, I encourage you to forgo the mental gymnastics and use the word generally better suited for our expectations on how our government should operate.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:31PM (2 children)
There is NOTHING else [besides profitably] in this universe
Now, describe the profit motive WRT SoylentNews.
Repeat for your town's community chest.
Hint: Not all endeavors need to make a profit.
You have been brainwashed by greedy people for whom "enough" is never enough.
A system that provides social stability for all (Socialism) is more viable than a system (Capitalism) that maximizes profits for a few individuals.
We're seeing the implosion of that latter archaic, obsolete system today.
In several of his songs, Springsteen[1] has written about the hollowing out of USAian towns by Capitalists offshoring jobs.
[1] Arranging/performing "Born in the USA" as a cheerleader stomp was a bad choice.
(People only pay attention to the chorus.)
I've heard that tune performed as a dirge by another act; if you look at the lyrics, that is more appropriate.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:00PM
You're not listening to him. In this case, SN's profit is the value of the discussions we have, not dollars. If at a certain point our discussions' value sinks too low, it may not be worth "buying" anymore.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:01PM
Y'all are talking at cross purposes. There's profit as counted in strict cash terms, and then there's profit in the broader sense of desirable outcomes for acceptable costs.
"A system that provides social stability for all (Socialism) is more viable than a system (Capitalism) that maximizes profits for a few individuals."
Citation needed. And, while we're at it, measures of "viable" and comparisons of net outcomes, society-wide.
"In several of his songs, Springsteen[1] has written about the hollowing out of USAian towns by Capitalists offshoring jobs."
Sure, lots of people have chronicled all sorts of things about the shifting economic and social grounds in the USA. Gangsta rap is one example.
The good news is that you can model a socialist system within a capitalist ruleset. Very techy. Go on, gewg! Instantiate VirtuaSociety on the CapitaloHost!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday July 06 2017, @09:46AM (1 child)
> There is NOTHING else in this universe.
> A bank balance is just one way to try to measure profit, but it's not the only way. Maybe that is your confusion.
Either resources are hot, or they are not. That's it.
There is NOTHING else in this universe
A pyrometer is just one way to try and measure heat, but it's not the only way. Maybe that's your confusion.
How the fuck did anything you say better respond to your parent post than the equally, if not more, true bollocks I've just written. If you agree to forget about profit for a second, I'll promise to forget about heat. And then maybe you'll be able to enter a discussion from which you'll be able to learn a bit more about how the world can work (rather than how the bubble you live in currently works, if you can call it working).
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @04:29PM
Try again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:52PM (3 children)
It should be concern of government because PROFITABILITY = SUSTAINABILITY. You cannot hope something to endure while it hemorrhages money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:07PM (2 children)
Well, if you're an international banker, you can survive just fine while hemorrhaging money. You'll be too big to fail.
(Not sure if I'm refuting or illustrating your point. Probably illustrating it, since the international banker is only able to do so thanks to our violently imposed monopolies.)
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:22PM (1 child)
Rather than letting poorly managed banks fail, and thereby allow their resources to become controlled by more competent minds, the governments of the world instead decided to prop up those bad banks by using money stolen from citizens at the point of a gun.
Your government did that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:36PM
Yes that is a fail. It's like preventing intermittent disaster to create a longer and enduring one.
I understand the FEELs argument behind it. Workers are poorly insulated from such happenings. But these were mostly White Collar workers, who would have been better able to weather the storm. Collapse of a large bank creates opportunity for smaller players to go into the market. Giving these new players money would have been a better way to go. In the end we averted nothing, we are still precariously on the line here, and these banks are just getting more and more sinister because they know there is no lose for them.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:20PM (9 children)
In a 'finite' world, there can be no profit, only circulation.
It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance!
The world is a ledger.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Justin Case on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:44PM (8 children)
I think you misunderstand the word "profit".
Suppose I go over to the orange grove and buy a truckload of oranges. That cost me (let's say) $1000. Now I drive around to a bunch of grocery stores and sell them oranges. Wear and tear on my truck, plus fuel: $100. But I sold the oranges for $1200, so at the end of the day I have $100 left over. That is my profit.
The store managers were happy to pay me (a total of) $1200, in part because they didn't have the time or inclination to drive out to the orange grove for just one crate of oranges.
If the store managers were not happy to pay me $1200 they would not have paid me $1200. But they were. In fact, they might have been willing to pay even more. But the fact is they agreed to the bargain because buying my oranges seemed better to them than not buying my oranges. In other words they profited on the deal too although perhaps the exact dollar value of their profit may be hard to calculate.
We can now see that every time two people agree to a trade they both profit. Otherwise they would not have agreed.
Every voluntary transaction increases the happiness in the world, because both parties are happier.
The amount of profit you make each day is a measure of how much happiness you added to the world.
Unless of course you stole the money. In that case the other party did not agree, and you should go to jail. Like thieving politicians, who make the world unhappier every time they force a transaction on unwilling participants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:53PM (4 children)
Oh, dear, now I see why you flunked out of micro-economics.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:56PM (3 children)
Feel free to enlighten us where he went wrong, O Almighty AC, instead of just pointing and laughing.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @12:04AM (2 children)
He forgot labor! Just like a capitalist apologeticist! He forgot to pay himself for the 10 hours of work, loading, unloading, driving, waiting, and dead-heading back. At a decent minimum wage of $15/hr, he would be -$50 of profits. I do not expect someone this challenged by numbers to stay in business very long. Which is good, because we forgot to factor in unemployment insurance, health insurance, retirement benefits, liability insurance, and Social Security.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday July 06 2017, @10:41AM
If the man sells the oranges for $150M, and pays himself $15M/hour in wages for those 10 hours of work, would you say he's down $1000 on the day? That's a silly question, your above statement demonstrates that you would say that. And if you wouldn't then that would demonstrate that you are happier contradicting yourself than anything else.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 06 2017, @03:28PM
If the guy is working for himself, the profit *is* his pay.
"That's what governments are there for: to get in a man's way."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by BK on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:11PM (1 child)
That's microeconomics 101... but the reality is more complex.
FTFY.
If everyone has equal information and analysis, then everyone should profit, or at least break even. But often enough, that is not the case.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday July 06 2017, @10:49AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:25PM
Your last sentence really shows the problem with your idealized scenario of basic capitalism. There are many caveats, so like every other system it falls prey to exploitation. As humans we have to agree on the problems we face, and come to terms with how to handle such problems. History seems to show that diversity is the answer, conservative and liberal ideologies applied where desired, economic systems of socialized versus privatized used where applicable.